Feingold Email Newsletter
November 2000
Dear Feingold Members & Friends,

[ ] Some Things to be Thankful for
       - Our Feingold Volunteers
       - Previous eNews Issues Now On Line
       - 3 Years of Thanksgiving Recipes
       - A Fragrance Free Environment
       - Goodbye Starlink Corn?
       - Congress Wants Your Story
       - FDA Wants Your Complaints
       - New Review of ADHD Treatments
[ ] Vaccine Information
[ ] History of Food Coloring - FDA
[ ] Follow the Money -- Who Pays FDA?
[ ] The Cancer Connection


Our Feingold Volunteers

This is a thank-you to all our Feingold Volunteers who distribute brochures or information, who talk to their PTA or church groups, who staff our conference tables, run our offices, and help new members in person or through the Message Board.

And a special thank-you to the Chicago volunteers who recently helped us at the very first booth FAUS had at the annual ChADD Conference November 1-4, 2000.

to Ayelet who allowed all the boxes to be shipped to her house and take over her living room for weeks, and to her children who helped put together 500 "blue books" for the Conference table

to Harriet who somehow fit all these boxes into her car and got me to the hotel in time to run to the airport for more of us; and who also helped man the table, and even gave us a tour of Chicago at the end ... we will never forget Picasso's Woman even if we were too pooped to get out of the car to see it up close

to Dan & Sharon who helped man the tables and listen to some of the speakers, and to their daughter who babysat for their other children so they could do it

to Chris, our youngest volunteer and the dream son of every mom in the room ... when asked if he likes being on the diet, he answered "I don't always like it, but it's always worth it." How's that for 12-year-old wisdom?

to Marilee and Kathy who flew in to make it all happen

Thanks also to all you wonderful people who stopped by and took the time to find out what we do -- we hope some of you have subscribed to the eNews and will receive this

* * * * * * *

Sharon & Dan wrote us a note of thanks for the privilege of volunteering, which I would like to share with all of you, with permission:

"We had a great time and we are glad that we can put faces with names now, too. We are so glad you ladies have devoted your time to make so many families' lives calm and peaceful. You are helping those people reach their fullest potential. Our oldest daughter K---, was just selected as part of a student ambassador program to represent our country in Europe next summer. We would have never dreamed of that possibility before the Feingold Program. She was able to watch the rest of our children while we were at the conference. She would not have been able to do that either if not for the Feingold Program. Please never tire in your efforts to bring to our nation the hope that so many people are looking for (even though they don't know it)! Be Blessed!! See Ya!! Dan and Sharon"

Previous eNews Issues Now On Line

By your request, some of the previous Feingold eNewsletters have been posted to the website at www.feingold.org/newsarchive.html or go to the Feingold Home Page and see the link. More will be posted as I have time.
3 Years of Thanksgiving Recipes

Instead of recipes in this issue of the eNews, I refer you to the November newsletters from 1997, more 1997, 1998, and 1999,
A Fragrance Free Environment

Many people using the Feingold Program are sensitive to synthetic fragrances as well as synthetic additives in their foods. While for some people, exposure to a perfume causes a passing headache or nausea, for others it can ruin their day. We were thankful, therefore, to find out that the Federal Access Board has decided to take a stand, at least on their own grounds.

The Access Board, an independent United States Federal agency devoted to accessibility for people with disabilities, has adopted a policy to promote fragrance-free environments at its meetings and public events. You can see more information here.
- Goodbye Starlink Corn?

The US EPA has accomplished the voluntary removal of Starlink Corn from the market -- maybe. On October 12, the company producing it agreed to cancel its registration which means that they will not be able to grow any more of it.

On Halloween, however, says GreenPeace, there was a new wrinkle. I phoned for clarification, and was informed that the Starlink Corn people approached EPA with the following proposal -- to let them use up the large stock of Starlink Corn that they have already grown and which is now in large store-houses. And so as not to "waste" it, they want to use it for humans, ignoring the warnings.

If EPA agrees to that, for "just this once" then it is only a small step to re-think the entire recall. See more information, and a place for you to give your opinion, at (the link has since been removed.)

Many people are concerned or confused about the increased use in this country of genetically engineered products. It appears that we have been eating them since 1996, but nobody bothered to tell us.

While genetic engineering of food plants is not addressed by the Feingold Program - indeed, it did not exist during Dr. Feingold's lifetime - we have learned to be cautious about any new addition or change to the food supply.

Whether such food will affect our children, or their ability to behave and accomplish their goals, is yet to be seen. Meanwhile, if you are not familiar with what genetic engineering is, or what all the hullabaloo is about, here is some more information: The True Food Network
Congress Wants Your Story

Congressman Dan Burton would like to hold hearings before the end of the year about the struggles parents face when their children have disabilities and they have to fight for education. HERE IS YOUR CHANCE TO BE HEARD

Date:   11/3/00 1:18:19 PM Central Standard Time
From:   Beth Clay
      Professional Staff Member
      Government Reform Committee
      US House of Representatives
      202-225-5074 (TEL)
      202-226-1274 (FAX)









Beth.Clay@mail.house.gov (Clay, Beth)

FDA Wants Your Complaints

If you have had an adverse reaction to any product regulated by the FDA (including the additives eliminated on the Feingold Program), you can report it to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator for your state. The list is at: www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/problem.html#Coordinators

If you prefer, you can mail your complaint to the Adverse Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS) at:

Food and Drug Administration
200 C St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20204

- New Review of ADHD Treatments

Just last month, Alternative Medicine Review has published a new review called "Attention Deficit/ Hyperativity disorder (ADHD) in children: rationale for its integrative management" by P.M. Kidd. See the MedLine abstract and full text of the review at www.feingold.org/frame-text.html#reviews or www.feingold.org/http://www.feingold.org/Research/adhd.html#Kidd

In the past few years, there has been an increasing concern about whether vaccines are safe, especially related to their safety testing and mercury content.

Some researchers have linked vaccines to the rise in autism and ADHD, as well as to the increase in asthma, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders.

Some of our members are concerned that their children may be at increased risk for adverse effects, or that some of their current problems may be related to previous vaccinations.

We hope that further research into these issues will provide more answers.

The following sources of information are provided as a service to you, as we come into the flu season

NOTE: This is not intended to provide medical advice. Please seek the guidance of a qualified health care provider concerning medical issues.

Distributor of Flu Vaccine Comes Under Fire
-- NY Times, Nov. 17, 2000

CDC National Immunization Program Flu Season 2000-2001 www.cdc.gov/nip/flu-vac-supply/flu-intro.htm (link no longer active)

National Vaccine Information Center
The Flu and the Flu Vaccine

A short time ago, a program was aired on 60 Minutes about vaccines and autism.

Karyn Seroussi, author of the book Unraveling the Mystery of Autism writes the following analysis, reprinted here with permission:

As you can well imagine, I am disappointed with the 60 Minutes piece on autism & vaccines. I believe it made the following points:

  1. The onset of autism merely coincides with vaccines in the second year of life
  2. Parents want to blame vaccines because they need a scapegoat
  3. There are no scientific studies linking vaccines to autism
  4. If children die from measles epidemics, it will be the fault of Dr. Wakefield for putting forth an unsupportable theory
  5. The horrors of measles infection are so great that it is worth the risk of autism to dismiss this fear in order to maintain vaccine compliance
  6. Parents can not be trusted to give their children monovalent (single) vaccines on schedule
It downplayed or neglected the following points:
  1. Thousands of previously normal children have been reported by parents to have become autistic suddenly, within days or weeks after the vaccine
  2. There are often concurrent gastrointestinal issues associated with these children
  3. Dr. Wakefield is a gastroenterologist who found evidence of measles vaccine virus and gut damage in the GI tracts of these kids
  4. This type of gut damage can take place in several ways. MMR is just one pathway to autism in a predisposed subgroup of kids. This is why not all cases of autism come from the MMR.
  5. Treating this subgroup by removing the "toxins" released from the gut into the bloodstream can result in the reversal of their autistic symptoms
  6. There is an increase in LATE-ONSET autism
  7. There were only two STATISTICAL studies showing no correlation. Dr. Katz made it sound like there was much more evidence in his favor
  8. Dr. Katz has a conflict of interest - Dr. Wakefield has none
  9. No one, not even Dr. Wakefield, is suggesting that parents not vaccinate
  10. It is urgent that we identify children at risk for developing late-onset autism so that it can be studied and prevented
If you share my sentiments or have comments of your own, I suggest you contact to 60 Minutes:

Phone: You can call their switchboard at: 212-975-3247

Fax:   Or you can fax a message at: 212-975-2019

Email: FEAT@list.feat.org

60 Minutes does not give an address for online email feedback. But you can still email them by sending your online letters to us at FEAT and we will forward them to CBS News management:

Karyn Seroussi, author
Unraveling the Mystery of Autism
(This book is available in our bookstore at www.feingold.org/bookstore.html )

This is excerpted from the 1993 FDA document "Color Additives" at vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-221.html

Archaeologists date cosmetic colors as far back as 5000 B.C. Ancient Egyptian writings tell of drug colorants, and historians say food colors likely emerged around 1500 B.C.

Through the years, color additives typically came from substances found in nature, such as turmeric, paprika and saffron. But as the 20th century approached, new kinds of colors appeared that offered marketers wider coloring possibilities. These colors, many whipped up in the chemist's lab, also created a range of safety problems.

In the late 1800s, some manufacturers colored products with potentially poisonous mineral- and metal-based compounds. Toxic chemicals tinted certain candies and pickles, while other color additives contained arsenic or similar poisons.

[Note: they still do. Arsenic is allowed at 3 parts per million in most of the FD&C colorings. See www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/21cfr74_99.html to check out the amounts of arsenic, lead, and mercury allowed in the various colorings for food, drugs and cosmetics.]
Historical records show that injuries, even deaths, resulted from tainted colorants. Food producers also deceived customers by employing color additives to mask poor product quality or spoiled stock.

By the turn of the century, unmonitored color additives had spread through the marketplace in all sorts of popular foods, including ketchup, mustard, jellies, and wine. Sellers at the time offered more than 80 artificial coloring agents, some intended for dyeing textiles, not foods. Many color additives had never been tested for toxicity or other adverse effects.

[Most have STILL not been tested for neurotoxicity]
As the 1900s began, the bulk of chemically synthesized colors were derived from aniline, a petroleum product that in pure form is toxic. Originally, these were dubbed "coal-tar" colors because the starting materials were obtained from bituminous coal. (These formulations still are used today--albeit safely--for most certifiable color additives.)
["safely" is their opinion -- not ours]
Though colors from plant, animal and mineral sources--at one time the only coloring agents available--remained in use early in this century, manufacturers had strong economic incentives to phase them out. Chemically synthesized colors simply were easier to produce, less expensive, and superior in coloring properties. Only tiny amounts were needed. They blended nicely and didn't impart unwanted flavors to foods. But as their use grew, so did safety concerns.

In 1906, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drugs Act. This marked the first of several laws allowing the federal government to scrutinize and control additives use. The act covered only food coloring. It was not until passage of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 that FDA's mandate included the full range of color designations consumers still can read on product packages: "FD&C" (permitted in food, drugs and cosmetic); "D&C" (for use in drugs and cosmetics) and "Ext. D&C" (colors for external-use drug and cosmetics).

Public hearings and regulations following the 1938 law gave colors the numbers that separate their hues. These letter and number combinations-- FD&C Blue No. 1 or D&C Red No. 17, for example-- make it easy to distinguish colors used in food, drugs or cosmetics from dyes made for textiles and other uses. Only FDA certified color additives can carry these special designations.

The law also created a listing of color "lakes." These water-insoluble forms of certain approved colors are used in coated tablets, cookie fillings, candies, and other products in which color bleeding could make a mess or otherwise cause problems.

Though the 1938 law did much to bring color use under strict control, nagging questions lingered about tolerance levels for color additives. One incident in the 1950s, in which scores of children contracted diarrhea from Halloween candy and popcorn colored with large amounts of FD&C Orange No. 1, led FDA to retest food colors. As a result, in 1960, the 1938 law was amended to broaden FDA's scope and allow the agency to set limits on how much color could be safely added to products.

FDA also instituted a pre-marketing approval process, which requires color producers to ensure, before marketing, that products are safe and properly labeled. Should safety questions arise later, colors can be reexamined. The 1960 measures put color additives already on the market into a "provisional" listing. This allowed continued use of the colors pending FDA's conclusions on safety.

From the original 1960 catalog of about 200 provisionally listed colors, which included straight colors and lakes, only lakes of some colors remain on the provisional list. Industry withdrew or FDA banned many, while the rest became permanently listed and are still used. Some of these colors, derived from coal or petroleum sources, are subject to certification and carry the F,D, or C prefix. Others, exempt from certification, are pigments and colors derived from plant, animal and mineral sources. They are found in a myriad of products--from the caramel that tints cola drinks to the orange annatto that gives color to cheese.

FDA certified over 11.5 million pounds of color additives last fiscal year. [1992] Of all those colors straight dye FD&C Red No. 40 is by far the most popular. . . FDA certified more than 3 million pounds of the dye in fiscal year 1992--almost a million pounds more than the runner-up, FD&C Yellow No. 5.

- J.H.

John Henkel is a staff writer for FDA Consumer.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FDA CONSUMER, December 1993

Excerpt from the same page as above: vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-221.html

"The color certification program is self-supporting because the law requires manufacturers to pay FDA a user fee for each pound of color the agency certifies. In Fiscal Year 1994 FDA certified almost 12 million pounds of color additives. "

[Ed. note -- emphasis mine]

[Update: In their fiscal year 2000, ending Sept 30, 2000, the FDA certified almost 13.5 million pounds of color additives, including more than 3.7 million pounds of FD&C Red #40 and over 2.2 million pounds of FD&C Yellow #5 and #6 each, and another million each for the "lake" of each of these colors (aluminum lakes are not soluble in water) See more at vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/col-cert.html ] Note -- The FDA is paid per pound of coloring certified. Do you see a conflict of interest? How much revenue (and how many jobs) would be lost if they decided to ban or restrict a coloring?

See www.diet-studies.com/color.html where you can see the information about a carcinogen named Benzidine which is so toxic that only 1 part per BILLION (1 ppb or 1 ng/g) is allowed in the FD&C colors. However, you will also see three studies that found much more than 1 ppb in the commercial samples of the dye.

I emailed the researcher, Dr. Lancaster, who informed me that 270 TIMES the allowed amount was still "not much," and I should not worry. It makes me wonder, however -- if they are that lax about their own regulations, how much lead, arsenic and mercury are REALLY in the colorings?

Then there's p-Cresidine, another chemical used in the manufacture of the azo dyes. It is a "potent (strong) rodent bladder carcinogen," which is so dangerous that the Ninth Report on Carcinogens says that "even trace amounts are cause for concern." None is allowed in the colorings at this time. However, since before 1981 it has been known that it IS found in Red #40. Is it found in the others? Apparently, nobody is looking.

According to the Ninth Report on Carcinogens,

"The FDA does not currently regulate p-Cresidine under the Food,Drug,and Cosmetic Act (FD&CA). However, the chemical is a potential contaminant in Red 40 (Allura Red) and regulatory action is pending. OSHA regulates p-Cresidine under the Hazard Communication Standard and as a chemical hazard in laboratories."

So, after 20 years, they are just getting around to thinking about regulating it?

Well now, Dr. Lancaster, I won't worry. I won't eat it either, you can bet on that.

Enjoy a happy and safe Thanksgiving,